linksbro

Personally, I'm waiting for Gemini Krypton, Xenon, and Radon.

Jokes aside, looks like an impressive model!

What's the process like? I wasn't aware there was a paid API key.

The examples of mouse movement, really reminds me what bot scripts looked like for Runescape back in 00s-10s. Early scripts were color-based and jumped the mouse around, and those were quickly caught. But over time, bot scripts developed into complex orchestrations; taking breaks, doing random actions spontaneously, moving the mouse naturally, logging sessions on different platforms (mobile, PC), even responding in chat.

There's been plenty of effort put into mimicking realistic / "human" behavior in writing video game bots, and every video game still has tons of bots despite the best efforts of the game devs.

You definitely can't win against bots - but you can definitely make the entire "game" (web at large, in this case) worse off for everyone else through this "always-online DRM" parallel.

> Deleted the below posts out of an abundance of caution. Despite the words of the Proclamation, an unnamed White House official told New York Times that they intend to apply the $100,000 only to new applicants only.

> If that is correct, the implications are not as urgent.

https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3l...

Would this result in the same .class that javac produces? I.e. at runtime is code compiled with this fundamentally different than code compiled with javac?

Best of luck, Google oncalls.

Hive just shut down their entire app: https://twitter.com/TheHIVE_Social/status/159811907190799155...

It's incredible to learn from the responses in this thread how widespread and systemic this problem is, not just in software but seemingly every industry. Thank you for these examples.

Perhaps it will be beneficial in the discussion to add examples of other orgs e.g. IETF, Unicode. Unicode spec is fully available[1] and their funding comes from a membership-model rather than a pay-model[2].

ISO's argument is compelling but we see other standards organizations taking different approaches and more or less still finding success.

[1] http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode13.0.0/ [2] https://home.unicode.org/membership/why-join/

> I only wish it could detect when asshole newspapers do that last minute mutation of the DOM to put bullshit divs in front of the article. It makes me play a button-click race to beat the rendering of the bullshit div to reader mode.

More often than not, going into reader mode, then hitting refresh will fix this! (works for NYT)

There are hundreds of high-quality, spoken articles found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoken_articles

You can find more information about the project here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_W...

Brave Inc.'s response: https://www.brave.com/blogpost_4.html

What are the norms for attribution when it comes to software? You include a LICENSE file if you're distributing the source, or you display it in your software (like iPhones and Androids).

What are the norms for attribution when it comes to images, videos? The footer. A bar over the bottom of the image. A CC logo. Anything visibly displayed along side the image.

What are the norms of attribution when it comes to website design? The footer, or an About page.

The point is that attribution is made as accessible as possible. It's what keeps the Creative Commons community strong! Deleting the template author's attribution section and relegating it to the SOURCE CODE of the website means that anyone who doesn't know what the source code is (a lot of people) don't know that "hey, this is a template that I can use too!" The attribution is _missing_. It needs to be present with the work, i.e. the web page, and hey, how do you do that? You put the link in the footer, where it was before you deleted it.

Yeah, and this person didn't do that. Check the gh-pages branch. The license there indicates it is the CC-BY 3.0 version of the template.

https://github.com/vertexclique/tokamak/blob/gh-pages/LICENS...

Attribution is a fine line; removing the attribution from where it was in the template and plastering "All Rights Reserved" copyright over it is a very clear violation of the creative commons license.

In some situations, it's difficult to place attribution along with the media, but in this case, it's not - it's a webpage - and having the attribution be in the source code is not really acceptable, because it's not reasonably accessible for someone looking for it.

If you look at that page and only that page, what leads you to believe that this is built of off a CC-BY work? Nothing. Sure, you can add "for copyright and license information, visit this link" in the footer, with a link to the github readme page that has the attribution, but removing it all together and only leaving scraps of it in the source code is just careless, reckless misuse of the original author's work.

You used this website template (http://html5up.net/hyperspace) which has a Creative Commons 3.0 license, and you scrubbed the author's name and attribution from the template. Please respect the license! http://html5up.net/license

Just because they've trademarked "kik" doesn't give them complete control over all instances of that 3 letter string in the world. See the 8 factors of trademark infringement, and trademark law in general; this is just a kik lawyer being threat happy.

It transmits via some sub-1ghz free spectrum bands, which travel a good distance and have decent structure penetration. https://beartooth.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/216797018-Wh...

This is why unlicensed spectrum bands are great; they allow for stuff like this to be built without a billion dollar spectrum price tag.

Please fix the links to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. These should always be the first documents working on your startup's website.

And can anyone find this 'roadmap' that Eich talks about in the post?

Here is the news release from Verizon: https://www.verizon.com/about/news/introducing-freebee-data-...

The summary:

* companies can pay VZW to zero-rate their data on two models

* per-click: users will see "FreeBee" icon next to content that is per-click sponsored, so that they know clicking through to the data won't count against their data cap.

* per-gig data: blanket zero-rated data

The bad news is, unlike T-Mobile, companies HAVE TO PAY Verizon if they want their data zero-rated. Because Verizon is in such a big market position, this basically means in order for your company to stay competitive among VZW customers, you have to cut Verizon a huge check.

If people were reserved about calling what Tmo did a NN-violation, I'd like to see what they say about Verizon.

Here is Verizon's product page for FreeBee: http://freebee.verizonwireless.com/business/freebeedata/prod...

>What gives with the Mickey Mouse hand cursor?

It's just a larger version of the default hover-over-a-link OSX cursor.

How can a service like this exist when pretty much every company API says this in their ToS:

> Don't sell, transfer or sublicense our code, APIs, or tools to anyone.

Sec 4 #10 of https://developers.facebook.com/policy/#properuse

"New CC0 Stock Photo Website" with a member login and a /shopping cart/? And you want my email address before I download a photo?

How about "New Stock Photo Website using CC0 photos to gain an audience, impending expansion into the pay-for-stock-photos market"

Try these real sites that won't try to take your money: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page http://unsplash.com/

So how would you respond to 47 U.S.C. 276 (c)(d)? [1]

(c) STATE PREEMPTION To the extent that any State requirements are inconsistent with the Commission's regulations, the Commission's regulations on such matters shall preempt such State requirements.

(d) DEFINITION As used in this section, the term ''payphone service'' means the provision of public or semi-public pay telephones, the provision of inmate telephone service in correctional institutions, and any ancillary services.

This explicitly states that since inception, the FCC has been directed by congress to have jurisdiction over __inmate telephone service__, and __any ancillary services__.

How can you have anything __more__ direct than this language?

[1]https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

I'm not sure how I understand how an independent commission created by congress to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges"[1] is increasing the scope of their authority by very clearly making it possible for the incarcerated to access wire communications at a reasonable charge.

Can you elaborate on how you're seeing this as an overreach?

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

They voted against it because they believe it "exceed(s) the commission’s legal authority."[1] But they both said the idea had "well intentions." [2]

Makes you wonder what horrors a conservative majority FCC will cause.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/22/regulators-sl... [2] Full commission meeting (item was first on agenda) https://www.fcc.gov/events/open-commission-meeting-october-2...

It looks like some movies will also be available, as well as new original content[1][2]. This is shaping up to look like a netflix + spotify all in one package.

Certainly this is also an attempt to curb the pervasiveness of adblocking by providing the ad-free option.

[1] https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/home/youtube-red-bl... [2] https://sites.google.com/site/ytredpress/youtube-originals/y...

> In sum, we conclude that: (1) Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google’s commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use. (2) Google’s provision of digitized copies to the libraries that supplied the books, on the understanding that the libraries will use the copies in a manner consistent with the copyright law, also does not constitute infringement. Nor, on this record, is Google a contributory infringer.